Over the last forty years we have listen to tens of thousands of scientist say the words, due to “human activities.” These are indeed very smart people in their particular area. For example in just one periodical over the last 4 months the following five articles where printed blaming human activities for what is wrong with the world.

Manuel Lerdau, A Positive Feedback with Negative Consequences, Science 13 April 2007 316: 212-213
“... As more and more regions become influenced by human activities, the number of communities that suffer in this feedback loop will increase.”

Big Fish, Little Fish, Shellfish, Science 30 March 2007 315: 1764
“The loss of large predators from ecosystems, often caused by human activities, can have effects that cascade through the rest of the food chain. Myers et al. (p. 1846 )”

Keith P. Shine and William T. Sturges, CO2 Is Not the Only Gas, Science 30 March 2007 315: 1804-1805
“...wetlands, soils, and the ocean; methane concentrations have increased dramatically in the 20th century as a result of human activities,...”

If all these scientists are right, why haven’t they considered the obvious, that the problem is not the activities, but the number of humans doing them.

The obvious problem here is that there are just 4 billion too many of them. If we had the technology of today with the population of 100 years ago, the world would be a far better place. It is impossible to reduce the carbon footprint sufficiently to save humankind without drastically reducing the number of feet.

Just as sure as, race discrimination is wrong, reverse discrimination is also wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. These kinds of laws do much more harm than good. The original law didn’t stop mistreatment and unfair practices; it merely changed the victims race. Unfairness and mistreatment angers all individuals. Revenge while sweet is not the answer.

Emphasizing differences between individuals builds walls and fosters disharmony and resentment of those outside the walls. Emphasizing similarity builds bridges and pulls people together. We are all human. We all laugh, cry, if you cut us we all bleed, we all have needs and fears. We need to emphasize the sameness and minimize the difference. We do not need African Americans, Native Americans any more than we need Irish Americans or Italian Americans. We just need Americans. Better yet Earthicans.

Oregroanian June28, 2007 page B4: An article titled —Dead Crow signals early start to West Nile Virus—. Reports that, “The arrival of the virus so soon in Portland this season reinforces predictions made earlier this year that West Nile could hit hard in Oregon's largest population center.”

The virus is spread from mosquito to victim, from victim back to mosquito. Mosquito’s flight range is in 1000’s of feet. However, if a bird is bitten by an infected Mosquito, it can fly 1000’s of miles and spread the virus like a wild fire. Articles in scientific journals have discussed the drop in bird population across the country, and related those deaths to the West Nile Virus.

The article ends by suggesting that, “homeowners should drain stopped-up gutters, cans, old tires, flower pots — anything that could collect water and provide mosquitoes a breeding area.” Anything that could provide a breeding area?? What about the thousands of wetlands that the environmental law required to be built over the last 30 years? These large tracts of stagnant water breed millions more mosquitoes than half a can of water. One hundred years ago, we filled in wetlands to stop mosquito borne decease. Obviously, Environmentalists do not read history, nor can they admit a mistake. The spread of this dangerous decease is not caused by cans and tires; it is caused by an environmental policy that believes that all things bad are caused by humans. In a way that is true because the human environmentalist caused this problem.

Oregroanian June26, 2007 page A1: An article titled —Child abuse, neglect at a 10-year high—. Reports that “…more than 12,000 children were victimized in 2006, a 7 percent increase from 2005 and a rate that is growing faster than the population.

There is no worse crime that child abuse. Five bills have been signed into law aimed at improving lives for children. The article goes on to say, “Officials attribute the continued rise to methamphetamine and other substance abuse.” Round up the usual suspects.

Has anyone ever stopped to think that maybe part of the problem is too many children? Is irresponsible procreation is a god given right? How many of those who abuse one child will have another and abuse that one as well? It is a requirement in this state to pass a test to drive a car, because driving a car can harm people. Irresponsible procreation harms innocent people.

How about a sixth law that says if you abuse a child, you lose your right to produce children. That would be one law that would go a long way to reduce child abuse.

Oregroanian June21, 2007 page C1: An article titled —Farmers will grow ‘oil’ for refinery—. This article praises the apparent progress of Oregon’s finest hour our head long foray into renewable energy. This article shows a graph that indicates the US production of bio-diesel has increase 300 percent in the last two years. All of this oil is “non-petroleum oil and therefore supposed to be good for the environment. That is a shortsighted view. This oil comes from the same source that petroleum oil comes from, i.e. biomass – plants and animal products. Some how, the idea that these plants and animals are not part of the environment we are trying to save seems to have slipped past the radar.

Taking grain, forest products and other biomass and reducing it to diesel oil to fuel cars is a good idea? One thing that the earth has in abundance is grain to feed its population, forests and other biomass that we no longer need, which we can use to fuel our cars. The trouble with the world is that the average human has average intelligence. I wouldn’t expect Kulongoski to understand, but I would hope that some of the 6.5 billion people on the planet would see thousands of acres of food producing land have been turned over to oil production as a bad idea. Do you think that bio-diesel will not reduce the food supply in the world? Do you think it will not increase the cost of food? Do you think it will reduce poverty, hunger and unrest on the planet? Do you really think this will make the environment better? Or are you just not thinking?

Oregroanian June21, 2007 page A1: An article titled —Teen dreamed of being doctor until her secret got in the way—. This article tells a heartwarming and compelling story about a young woman from an impoverish country that illegally entered the US because she and her parents were starving in their home country and her struggle to graduate from OSU after she was found to be an illegal alien. The story blames the immigration laws for this tragedy. Everybody is a victim. If that is true then the laws on murder and robbery should be relaxed using the same line of reasoning.

I’M SORRY, BUT THE IMMIGRATION LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.

The problem is that the country of origin for this family could not provide food and opportunity for this family. Why is that? Because that country doesn’t care about its citizens? No. Because this country doesn’t care about other countries citizens? No again.

The immigration problem is not really a problem, it is a symptom of a world with two many people. If the home country could reduce population to a size that is sustainable then their citizens would not be starving, discontented and would not have to break laws to survive and be happy. According to the 2007 world almanac, only eight countries out of 194 produced more children than Mexico. Is that due to the US immigration laws? Or is it due to that countries Social and Religious practices?

Uncontrolled Human Population is the cause of most of the issues on the planet today. Why is nobody dealing with this problem?

Oregroanian June21, 2007 page A1: An article titled —Humans 1, salmon 0—. This article discusses a situation where the BPA sold some of its excess power and local demand exceeded supply. The oregronian wants to make this a clash between humans and salmon, but it is between global warming and salmon two environmental issues. Both of these issues have been thrust into the foreground by conflicting environmental religious doctrine. Poorly written laws have hobbled and tied the hands of the BPA. This allows the oregroanian and the people like Michael Milstein and Judge James Redden to whip them no matter which way they turn.

Good ole judge jimmy stated, “ Apparently BPA’s sales commitments to customers always trump its obligation to protect, (Endangered-Species Act)-listed species,” I wonder what he would have said had the BPA blackout his home and office? Later judge jimmy said “…the already ‘dangerously low rate of retuning adult fish’ makes each one that much more important.’’

If that is true, then why does jimmy allow sea lions, seals and other predators to consume millions of returning salmon? Or isn’t jimmy interested in saving salmon? Or is the Endangered-species act an unworkable law that conflicts with global warming? Or should judge jimmy, the ESA and bias reporting all be repealed?

You can’t have it both ways. We have been robbing Peter to pay Paul for 40 years and now Peter is at the door with a warrant for our arrest. Environmentalists have been making decisions for the last 40 years and those decisions have led Peter to our door.

One thing is sure and that is problems cannot be solved by close-minded ignorant people using half true science as the basis for decisions.

Science Magazine June 8, 2007 page 1413: An article titled —Pushing the scary side of Global warming—. An article is written by Richard Kerr states, “But no one understands just why the great ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica have accelerated their slide to the sea in recent years.” In this article, the author quotes Jonahtan Gregory a climate and sea level modeler from the university of Reading, U.K who coordinated the section on sea-level change of the IPCC report as saying, “Quantifying ice-sheet behavior does indeed have its limitations.”

It is worthwhile to note that the physical science of part of that report was written by 600 scientists, and drew 30,000 comments. Thirty thousand comments would indicate that many scientists had objections to what was being said in the report. This alone should raise a red flag. How were these comments handled? Was the report changed, were the comments ignored or withdrawn. So much for peer review.

The recent article on tropical cyclones and their effect on climate published in Science Magazine May 31, 2007 provides a process that has here to be ignored in these climate models that may very well explain the rapid retreat of the glaciers. Cyclone apparently force warm water down and poleward. Two things that happened in the last 10 years was an increase in cyclones and the melting of the glaciers. Hello. Does it take a genius to connect the dots. No, but it does take a climatologist with guts to go against Al Gore and the environmental religion.

Oregroanian June 16, 2007 page B7: An article titled —The silence you hear is birds. . . disappearing—. This article is written by Michael Milstein of the Oregonian. It starts off with an apparent statement made by an article in the June 7 edition of Nature magazine “NATURE Many have declined by at least 50% since the 1960’s, due to development , pesticides and cats.” The actual article never makes that statement and nowhere does it discuss the relationship between development, pesticides or cats.

The article in nature does make the statement that “A continent-wide analysis suggests that West Nile virus has severely affected bird populations associated with human habitats in North America.” (Nature Magazine volume 447, June 7, 2007, page 652.)

The entire article in Nature magazine addresses the effects of the west Nile virus on bird population. The point of the article is really on the spread of the virus, which is killing humans, pets and other vertebrates beside birds. The connection is that birds travel between individual wetlands carrying the virus with them and thereby spreading it to uninfected mosquitoes which then bite more birds and the cycle continues.

The connection discussed in the article is the connection between wetlands, mosquitoes and birds. Both the number of birds and the number of wetlands has increased due to environmental pressure.

Those environmentalist, that pushed for increasing wetlands were apparently unaware that mosquito borne diseases was the reason that wetlands were reduced 100 years ago. One question is, was the environmental policy to build more wetlands a sound idea? But, the more basic question here, is can you trust what the Oregroanian, Portland’s only daily newspaper, prints as being the truth?

Oregroanian June 13, 2007 page B7: An article titled —Kilimanjaro’s shrinking snow not due to global warming—. This article discusses a document that indicates that the shrinking of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro is in reality due to the location of the glaciers in an environment above 19,340 feet. At this elevation in the tropics the temperature never gets below freezing and thus the glaciers are not disappearing due to melting due to increase in global temperature, but sublimation and the lack of snowfall. According to this article, Douglas Hardy, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Massachusetts stated,

“Even though the mountain presents an interesting scientific puzzle, its anomaly compared with what’s happening with other glaciers. The new article will be seized on by —global warming naysayers— and could give people the mistaken impression that it calls global warming into question. What value to society does that serve?”

What is wrong with naysayers? Is Hardy concerned that his truth may be shown to false and the naysayers true? After all polar glaciers are subjected to the same environment only a lower elevations. Does this mean that the shrinking glaciers in the Polar Regions are also due to lack of snowfall and sublimation? Should we find that out?

On the other hand the author of the paper Philip Mote, the Washington State Climatologist, stated, “He worried about the article being misused, but decided to go ahead.” The reason given was,

“Science is a process of getting to the truth.”

This highlights the problem with many scientists today. Hardy is not interested in truth but in social reform using science as a means of that reform. If the truth gets in the way of the greater good of society it must be suppress. Unfortunately, too many of the scientists in high places have this same attitude, and let that attitude get in the way of finding the truth. Thus we are making decision of great importance today by people who have no interest in truth only social change in the direction they believe is correct. Social change is the dominion of religion. Suppressing information because it may not serve society in the manner that an individual deems proper, is fascism. Scientist should only be concerned with finding the truth. Changing society should be left to others.

The world needs far more Motes and considerable less Hardys. The best science is not incomplete science.

This is a speech given by Al Bartlett, professor emeritus at the University of Colorado on Earth Day. The comments enclosed in brackets are mine. Dr. Bartlett referred to Disney's First Law and is quoted as saying, “That Disney first law is “Wishing will make it so.” It's a particularly appropriate idea for Sunday, Earth Day 2007, as we confront the increasingly stark realities of global warming.” Bartlett's imaginary law pokes fun at our tendency to want happily-ever-after fixes rather than make substantive changes in the way we do things. Dr. Bartlett is particularly not fond of developers' and environmentalists' mutual oxymoron: sustainable growth. Growth on a finite planet - or more particularly, the United States' growth - cannot be sustained.

"In 1994, science's creme de la creme, in a rare joint statement by the national academies of 58 nations, reminded leaders - or tried to - that science cannot endlessly pull rabbits out of hats to solve problems caused by growth. Society, not just science, must forge population answers. It is not prudent to pin hopes on scientific solutions that may not prove sufficiently speedy or effective. And, as John Burton of the World Land Trust said, "Reducing our individual consumption on its own will not make a shred of difference to the future of the planet, without also addressing population.” Dr Bartlett said “Our planet still gains a billion people every 15 years.

(Actual it only takes about 8 years to gain a billion and the interval is decreasing.)

More relevant, perhaps, is that half of all population growth before 2050 will happen in just eight nations: India, Pakistan, Nigeria, the United States, China, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in that order.”

(Again this is not completely true, the united states growth rate, that is birthrate – death rate, is number 14 according to The 2007 world almanac. The US population is growing by immigration as well. Further according to the 2007 almanac the top eight nations that have increased their population by growth rate in order are India, China, South Africa, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Brazil)

“Unless we in the United States wake up and realize the stark reality - to us and the world - of that shocking distinction. While we cannot dictate to other nations, we should lead by example.

That brings us to President Bush and his version of Disney's First Law: biofuels. After years of refusing to confront global warming, Bush, in his State of the Union address, set a production goal for 2017 of 35 billion gallons of grain-based ethanol and other alternative fuels - a mere token gesture against climate change. Nonetheless, 80 ethanol distilleries are under construction. But World Watch Institute's Lester Brown recently, if inconveniently for politicians, pointed out that "the world's breadbasket is fast becoming the U.S. fuel tank." Last year, 16 percent of U.S. grain went to the fledgling ethanol industry.

Food markets and energy markets are merging. We rob Peter to pay Paul. Put in harsher terms, globally, cars compete against the world's poor for food. Cars are also responsible for the clearing of forests in Indonesia, South America and Africa to free land for biofuel production - self-defeating from the standpoint of global warming, because forests store carbon.”

(The veracity of that statement is questionable because the forest also pollute the atmosphere with other green house gases.)

“The world's 2 billion poorest people must soon compete for grain with 800 million of the richest people and their automobiles. Does anyone doubt who will lose on a planet where 18,000 children die from hunger every day? It is bad enough that the United States is, along with China, the planet's carbon-emissions 800-pound gorilla. But with our high population - one of only three nations with more than 300 million residents and, thanks mostly to unfettered immigration, booming toward 1 billion late this century - it would seem we must return to a priority of the 1970s that has been lost somewhere along the way: stabilizing U.S. population.”

“While alternative fuels, especially nongrain-based ethanol, generated from trash, sewage or manure, could play a part in our energy future, only delusional belief in Disney's First Law would indicate we can fight global warming while facing a tripling of the population - and the number of cars driven - in the most energy-consumptive nation in the world.”

(I agree wholeheartedly agree with these conclusions, however, I would add that none of the solutions based on so called green forms of power will solve the problem without major changes to the global growth rate. The best way to reduce human impact to the planet is to reduce the number of humans on the planet.)

Geologic history shows that at no time since the earth was formed has the climate on earth been constant. To suddenly stop all climate change on earth and create a perfect environment is impossible. Just because humans air-conditioning their homes or work space does not mean that they have the power to air condition the entire earth. For humans to correctly control the temperature on the planet would require humans to know what the perfect temperature and humidity is for the Earth. If humans simply stop climate change that assumes that the present climatic conditions are perfect and that, our present level of understanding is such that we know where the evolutionary process is headed. It is one thing to be aware of change, quite another to assume we understand the global and evolutionary process sufficiently to correctly direct the process. It may be true that burning of fossil fuels has increased the global temperature, but then so do wild fires and volcanoes. If the environmental movement wants to limit human impact on the planet, they can do that best, and maybe only, by limiting the number of humans on the planet.

Two hundred years ago human population increase to one billion and starvation was seen as a threat to the species. Technology removed that threat and over the next 100 years the population increased to two billion and starvation was again seen as a threat, once again technology removed that threat and the population has now increased to almost 7 billion and not only is starvation threatening again but pollution and human impact is also becoming a threat. None of the solutions being discussed presently will stop the human impact on the planet if the number of humans continues to increase. There is no such thing as clean energy, i.e. energy without environmental impact. The only thing that will work is to reduce the number of humans to a sustainable population. All species have a sustainable population. The human species needs to realize that an infinite number of humans cannot exist on this planet. The best we can hope for is an optimum number. Defining that optimum number will not be easy. However, while we are trying to determine that it may be a good idea to limit the births on this planet to 1 per couple for a few generations. Those religions that prophesy an end to the world, mean the end of human existence on this world.

Nature Magazine May 31, 2007 page 577: A article headlined –Observational Evidence for an Ocean Heat Pump induced by tropical cyclones– Makes the statement, “Our results indicate that tropical cyclones are responsible for significant cooling and vertical mixing of the surface ocean in Tropical regions. Furthermore, our analyses show that the magnitude of this mixing is strongly related to sea surface temperature, indicating that future changes in tropical sea surface temperatures may have significant effects on ocean circulation and ocean heart transport that are not currently accounted for in climate models.” Yet, another find modeling mess Al Gore has gotten us into. This study shows that the global warming temperatures have been over estimated.

What is also interesting is this study also concludes “…thus all heat loss from the oceanic mixed layer is transported downward and ultimately poleward.” This result fits well with the recent increase in melting of polar glaciers on the edges where they are subjected to warmer than normal water, while at the same time the mass of ice is increasing inland. This changes the cause of ice loss, from global warming to the record number of tropical cyclones in recent years. Making rash decisions before all the data is in is a sure way of making costly mistakes. But, the mob is already stirred into a frenzy. The problem needs to be solved, but even the most drastic current proposed solutions are not going to solve the problem and will cause major political and economic problems.

Oregroanian June 2, 2007 page C1: An article titled —Regulators want Wyden in BPA Battle—. Regulators assert that residential and small farm customers of private utilities in Oregon could be on the hook to refund as much as $800,000,000. The AVERAGE amount is expected to be $700. This will affect about 60% of the power users in Oregon, which get a 15% reduction in power costs. The other 40%, Portland customers get a 50% reduction. Hmmm, that seems fair. The article stated that “ Wyden was unavailable for comment Friday… the senator has been fairly quiet on the question of the BPA benefits since it blew up with the court decision in early May.” Is Ron’s power base the Portland environmentalists who want the salmon protected, without reducing predators and the dams pulled down and who support high-cost, bird-killing wind turbines.

The costs of this insanity are coming home to roost but the hardcore environmentalist responsible for this mismanagement want someone else to pick up the tab. Oregon could again have both cheap non-polluting power and salmon by built more dams adding more turbines to the dams already in place and reducing the number natural salmon predators. At the same time, protect farms and reduce property damage, from flooding, and stop the mining of water for irrigation and a human consumption.

Nature Magazine May 24, 2007 page 358: A report headlined –Plans forge ahead for better weather monitoring – Makes the statement, “Meteorologists are planning a coordinated global drive to recalibrate space-based measurements of the weather.” Two thing should jump out at you from this lead statement. First, space based weather monitoring, began 40 years ago. Space based weather monitoring is the only hope of getting an accurate global temperature. This implies that none of the global temperature measurements before 40 years ago are really valid. Second in also implies that in order for these measurements to be accurate and consistent, they need to be recalibrated often and in a standardized way. This is good science. However, it may be good science to late, because all of the temperature data that supports the theory of global warming is from non-calibrated instruments. This data supports the temperature models that predict global warming. Garbage in garbage out!

The author goes on to say, “The initiative will ask national satellite agencies to take steps to ensure better comparability of satellite measurements made by different instruments and satellites, and to tie these measurements to absolute references.” This is a step in the right direction, but also implies that none of the data used to formulate the theory of global warming is defendable.

The concerns of these scientist are justified. They also make the point that such (space based) measurements are vital because reliable ground-based observations are available for only about a quarter of Earth’s surface.” All of these concerns are serious and were discussed in NPR’s paper on Global warming, “Global Climate Change”, which can be download from the Archives page. What was not said was that the ground base measurements need to be standardized and calibrated as well.

Final the article admits that the only satellite “…to measure temperature in the stratosphere before 1998 is thought to have transmitted grossly biased temperature measurements since 1979.” It is nice to see Nature and the World Meteorological Organization finally agreeing with NPR.

Nature Magazine May 24, 2007 page 353: An editorial titled –Unwise Branding – Makes the statement, “Equating animal-rights activism with terrorism increases the penalties for offenders and will please many of their victims. But it is not in the interest of science.” I am sorry but I do not agree with that statement. So I and a few of my friends who believe the same way will show up next week at your office with a bomb. We will then see how calmly you speak. I sure your defense of my actions will please your widow.

The author states that the law somehow enshrines “…the idea that destructive activists are terrorists.” How unfair. The author then makes the Statement “But a terrorist is, in practice, a person who fights for a cause we do not believe in using methods that we do not approve of. Calling someone a terrorist is a value judgment.” The editors definition of a terrorist is not everybody’s definition of a terrorist. The inclusion of the phrase “…a cause we do not believe in,” is not necessary. The Crux of the definition is in the clause “…using methods that we do not approve of.”

Certainly calling someone a terrorist is NOT a judgment call. It is based on how that person acts. If you bomb, burn, and terrorize people, you are a terrorist.

Does this editor support activists in a conference who disagree with a presenter to shout him down, or burn that scientist’s notes. Terrorists are those who renounce objectivity and normally accepted means of disagreement. If an activist crosses that line they should be called terrorist. The author is afraid that by calling them terrorist that will prevent them form coming to the table for a friendly discussion of the problem. Why would anyone invite someone to table that does not have the common decency to behave according to socially acceptable practice. These people are not great thinkers. Why are they invited at all? The only difference between them and millions of other people on the planet who have an opinion on the issue is that they perform violent acts.

Why does this editor want to exclude people who perform violent acts from being criminals? Because he is an activist and believes in a cause, we do not believe in, like stopping all environmental change! Activist by definition have closed minds. Nothing the opposition says that challenges their beliefs can possibly be true. If by some chance, the activists did agree with an opinion different that theirs, their funding would disappear. The sixties ended 40 years ago, get over it. Marching in protest is mob rule. Mob rule is anarchy.

Science and society could do much better without activism or terrorism.